It’s completely ridiculous for Toronto to view itself as a city in the same league as Paris, London, Tokyo, or New York. It doesn’t even compare in any significant urban aspect imaginable. Instead, and just like you pointed out, a more realistic comparison would be against Sydney, Melbourne, Houston… etc.
However, the concept of “accepting the city as it is†is just silly, it’s pretty much the equivalent of cocooning ourselves in a shell and living in our own little world, ignoring anything that happens in other cities (whether it was Alpha or Beta.)
I hate repeating myself again but I’m going to do it anyways… when it comes to cities, I think the best ethos is to “analyze, juxtapose, and enhanceâ€. The following (I’ve already mentioned this
here) are some of projects undertaken by other cities around the world:
· London is enforcing (congestion charges) on some of its ‘downtown’ streets where motorists pay a fine when driving through them. This helps reduce congestion, cut down pollution, and promote the use of public transit, just to name a few advantages. Dozens of cities worldwide are implementing this concept on their streets as it has proved to be extremely successful and efficient in accomplishing its goals.
· New York City is in the middle of transforming its 13,000 cabs into hybrid vehicles by the end of 2012. This will prevent thousands of tons of carbon emissions to be released into the atmosphere. This will significantly reduce pollution and smog, not to mention, noise.
· Copenhagen has the biggest pedestrianized area in the world (i.e. Strøget) right in the centre of its ‘downtown’ where cars are eternally prohibited from entering the area. Doing this helps clean up atmosphere and noise pollution, encourage physical exercises such as walking and cycling, as well as foster a sense of neighbourhood and community among the residents. Melbourne, Australia has implemented that model as well.
However, based on your concept, we don’t have to try and implement any of the examples mentioned above since we’re just accepting Toronto as it is and are not making any comparisons to other cities.
There is a reason why urban planning programs arrange for field trips to cities across North America and Europe. The purpose is to study and analyze other cities, draw inspiration therefrom, implement their successes and avoid their failures.
By the same token, a better and improved version of Toronto could also qualify as a case study for urban planning students from other countries – we could end up teaching them a thing or two about good urban planning practices.
Don't you think?
